Landing without flaps

On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix wrote:
In article
,

Dan wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
to a walk down before every take-off?

For major airports, radar is being developed,
but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
Ken

Dogs?

Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.

I would use the words, "in competition".
Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.

Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
to people who want to see said tits.

A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.

Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
creating joy for the children, while saving lives.

Lassie would be proud...snifles.
Ken

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:07:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

george wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))


I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here

He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
it defies description.

Know an instructor who used to do that ...until he did it on one side
of a 310 during takeoff roll. He never did it again. Before they
could catch it the right tip tank was supporting the plane (from the
other side of the ditch. one prop was bent and the gear required major
surgery which meant a thorough of the spars and most of the structure.
Admittedly it was a twin, but pulling the mix on TO is creating a real
emergency if everything doesn't go right. Pulling it in the air is no
real biggie as the prop will keep turning and you have lots of
choices for landing along with lots of time for a restart which
*should* happen when the mixture is pushed back in with the prop still
turning.

Doing that without a LOT of runway ahead is really limiting your
options. Of course maybe he only does this in 150s on 10,000 foot
runways.

BTW I recognize that name from somewhere else. :-))

If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mar 5, 9:39 pm, Jim Stewart wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
On 5 Mar, 19:57, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:34 am, george wrote:

On Mar 5, 5:07 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
george wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
it defies description.
If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".
My point also.
Engine failure on takeoff is, in my experience, simulated by the
instructor/testing officer pulling power.
The student then carries out the engine failure on takeoff drills
whereupon the instructor/testing officer restores power
IMO he is not an instructor.
Yeah, but there is that cardinal rule, that one or the
other controls the ship and of course the CFI has
priority, but that does not allow the CFI to interfere
by sneaky with the aircraft, at least not in my ship.

Good grief, it's like reading something a nine year old would write.

It's not clear it wasn't written by a nine year old.

I think you're confused, I understand the command
of the ship is a very specific directive with NO
ambiguity. LOL, the way some of these alleged flight
instructors who post to this group, it sounds more
like Curly, Larry and Moe flying an airplane by
concensus. ... I'm splitting a gut from laughing.

Get Dan (BIG HEAD) Thomas, the "dud" (Dudlley)
and toss in bertie all on a bench seat in ole airplane,
and watch how they fly an airplane by consensus.
That trio would make the 3 stooges look like genius's.
LOL
Ken

On Mar 6, 7:20*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix wrote:

In article
,

*Dan wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
to a walk down before every take-off?

For major airports, radar is being developed,
but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
Ken

Dogs?

Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.

I would use the words, "in competition".
Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.

Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
to people who want to see said tits.

A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.

Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
creating joy for the children, while saving lives.

Lassie would be proud...snifles.
Ken

Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
extra tomato paste.

Cheers

On Mar 6, 2:27 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Get Dan (BIG HEAD) Thomas, the "dud" (Dudlley)
and toss in bertie all on a bench seat in ole airplane,
and watch how they fly an airplane by consensus.
That trio would make the 3 stooges look like genius's.
LOL
Ken

At least we'd be flying a real airplane while you're sitting
at the desk, pretending to fly.

Dan

On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix wrote:

In article
,

Dan wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
to a walk down before every take-off?

For major airports, radar is being developed,
but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
Ken

Dogs?

Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.

I would use the words, "in competition".
Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.

Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
to people who want to see said tits.

A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.

Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
creating joy for the children, while saving lives.

Lassie would be proud...snifles.
Ken

Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
extra tomato paste.
Cheers

Sure it's your idea.
Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
(Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
runway debris).
I think it's worth an experiment.
Ken

On Mar 6, 8:13 am, wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:27 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Get Dan (BIG HEAD) Thomas, the "dud" (Dudlley)
and toss in bertie all on a bench seat in ole airplane,
and watch how they fly an airplane by consensus.
That trio would make the 3 stooges look like genius's.
LOL
Ken

At least we'd be flying a real airplane while you're sitting
at the desk, pretending to fly.
Dan

Are you kidding? I'd pay you guys to sit in the back
seat and watch flying by commitee.
Ken

On Mar 7, 8:02*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps wrote:





On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix wrote:

In article
,

*Dan wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
to a walk down before every take-off?

For major airports, radar is being developed,
but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
Ken

Dogs?

Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.

I would use the words, "in competition".
Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.

Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
to people who want to see said tits.

A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.

Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
creating joy for the children, while saving lives.

Lassie would be proud...snifles.
Ken

Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
extra tomato paste.
Cheers

Sure it's your idea.
Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
(Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
runway debris).
I think it's worth an experiment.
Ken- Hide quoted text -


I think small dogs would be better than big dogs. The eat less, drop
smaller turds that will not make such a mess of the terminal windows
(a jet blast problem), do less damage to engines and props when sucked
into them, and will make less of a bump when run over. Their only
disadvanatge is that they would be less of a deterrant for the hoards
of terrorists wanting to get to the apron. This migh be offset by
having aggressive packs of little dogs trained to attack any one who
does not have an identification badge. When the dogs get older they
could be retired to the pie factory for processing and then sold to
asia to thelp the balance of payments. What do you think?

Cheers

On Mar 6, 10:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 5, 9:39 pm, Jim Stewart wrote:



Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
On 5 Mar, 19:57, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:34 am, george wrote:

On Mar 5, 5:07 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
george wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
it defies description.
If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".
My point also.
Engine failure on takeoff is, in my experience, simulated by the
instructor/testing officer pulling power.
The student then carries out the engine failure on takeoff drills
whereupon the instructor/testing officer restores power
IMO he is not an instructor.
Yeah, but there is that cardinal rule, that one or the
other controls the ship and of course the CFI has
priority, but that does not allow the CFI to interfere
by sneaky with the aircraft, at least not in my ship.

Good grief, it's like reading something a nine year old would write.

It's not clear it wasn't written by a nine year old.

I think you're confused, I understand the command
of the ship is a very specific directive with NO
ambiguity. LOL, the way some of these alleged flight
instructors who post to this group, it sounds more
like Curly, Larry and Moe flying an airplane by
concensus. ... I'm splitting a gut from laughing.

Get Dan (BIG HEAD) Thomas, the "dud" (Dudlley)
and toss in bertie all on a bench seat in ole airplane,
and watch how they fly an airplane by consensus.
That trio would make the 3 stooges look like genius's.
LOL


Any-one else have trouble equating kens waffle and spin with what one
would expect from a real pilot?

On Mar 4, 9:07 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
george wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))

I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here

He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
it defies description.
If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".

--
Dudley Henriques

First off, I wasn't asking about pulling the mixture, I was a asking
about switching the fuel selector valve. My reasoning was that when
students see the instructor reach over to grab one of the throttles,
it's not an accurate simulation of an engine failure. Theres an
element of surprise that is lost when you get a few moments of
preemptive awareness. I had planned on doing this "maneuver" on more
advanced students that have already demonstrated to me that they know
how to handle such situation.

And secondly, I wasn't arguing this maneuver is objectively "safe".
Just about everyone who replied to that thread was attempting to
classify this maneuver as objectively "unsafe" regardless of any other
circumstances. The majority is my arguments were against this line of
reasoning. I don't believe ANYTHING can be fairly classified as
objectively unsafe except for one thing and one thing only;
unpreparedness. How can you see nothing wrong with shutting down both
engines on a business aircraft, and doing aerobatics? Or airshow
pilots doing barrel rolls 10ft above the ground, or ANY kind of low
level aerobatics for that matter? How can you be OK with MEI's pulling
the mixture on takeoff roll, YET throw such a hissy fit over what I
had posted? The only reason I posted the thread in the first place was
to gather information from the group to help me better understand what
to expect? I was attempting to sufficiently prepare myself, but the
thread ended up being a circle-jerk instead.

I truly believe that if you objectively and systematically analyze any
situation, and address each and every factor that can go wrong,
anything can be done safely. In my case, I believe I did (or at least
attempted) to do just that. The runway was long and wide; the student
was, to my best judgment, capable of handling this without my help;
the plane is not going to do anything unpredictable as long as the
nose is lowered in due time (me and the student has done power off and
on stalls many times and we both sufficiently know how to avoid them);
I also was aware that the C152 only needs 200 feet or so to recover
from a stall in case one were to happen -- and so on and so on... I
made the post in an attempt to get a little extra piece of mind in
case there was something I happened to overlooked.

If people would have replied in a reasonable manner to gave real
insight, I would have definitely listened, because I agree I'm
stepping a little bit out of the bounds of normal everyday CFI
instruction techniques. I believed I was skilled enough in both giving
meaningful instruction, and piloting ability, in order to pull
something like this off safely and educatively.

But I never got any of those responses. All I got was "HURR NOT REALLY
AN INSTRUCTOR HHUUURRRR WORLDS WORST PILOT I CANT BELIEVE SOMEONE THIS
STUPID IS FLYING DDDUUUHHH I'M CALLING THE COPS FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER
LOLOL KINDERGARDEN USERNAEM I'M SO GLAD THAT I'M NOT THAT STUPID
HUGHLAUGHLAUGUHGUHGU HUUUURRRRR". I might have gotten a single
response or maybe two, that I definitely took into consideration, but
as soon as the first monkeyn decided to make the thread into an ego
stroke, (HUUR I'M SO MUCH BETTER THAT YOU), they all started. Within a
few days there were hundreds of similar replies. The exact same thing
went on with my thread about turning base in front of the Cirrus. It
started out well, until everyone started playing "follow the idiot".

Anyways, thats all for now, I just got back from Mexico and I'm tired.